Remedial Law: Plaintiff not expected to comply with the stipulation of venue on the agreement if he sails the validity of the latter. Compliance therewith means implicit recognition of its validity.
G.R. No. 204444, 14 January 2015
Facts
Briones is the owner of subject property in Manila (TCT No. 160689). In 2010, he was informed that the subject property was foreclosed. He discovered that he purportedly executed a loan agreement et al with Cash Asia. He claims he never did contract such loan, and that his signature was forged.
Briones filed with RTC Manila a case of Nullity of Mortgage Contract against Cash Asia.
Cash Asia prayed to dismiss his complaint on the ground of improper venue. Its basis is the stipulation of the subject contracts.
Briones’s response: “he should not be covered by that stipulation because he was never a party therein.” Reiterated that his signatures on the said contracts were forgeries.
RTC favored Briones. CA favored Cash Asia.
Issue
Will the exclusive stipulation on venue in the contract be enforced when the complaint assails the validity of the agreement?
Ruling
No.
Briones assails the validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance, Briones cannot be expected to complywith the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to Section 1. of Rule 4, Briones properly filed his complaint before RTC Manila where the subject property is located.
English